Talk:CC Kant

Summary of Groundwork draft

Background

The Groundwork was written 1785. Kant meant it to be a popular work explaining his formulation of the moral law and how he believes freedom is possible. A more academic, technical, and complete version is found in Critique of Practical Reason, which was published in 1788.

The Groundwork is divided into three parts:
1. Refinement of moral knowledge via regression from ordinary moral understanding.
2. Using this moral knowledge to formulate the moral law (Kant will present three).
3. A proof of freedom.

CC students are normally asked to read the first two parts. This is because Kant disowned the Groundwork version of the proof of freedom. Dissatisfied with it, he wrote a completely new proof of freedom in Critique of Practical Reason. Hence, modern scholars now consider the third part of the Groundwork philosophically irrelevant, and thus it is not included in the CC syllabus.

Part 1

People are born with basic moral truths. So in merely presenting cases, one extracts moral knowledge. You don't need a philosopher to tell right from wrong - everybody understands morality just as much as everybody else does.

What Kant regresses from ordinary moral understanding by providing a series of examples. From these cases you get a more explicit understanding of the implicit knowledge which you knew all along. In effect, he is extracting moral knowledge and hence giving the reader a more profound grasp of it.

Unsurprisingly, Kant concludes that the morality of an action lies in the intent. Further, Kant contends that the only good motive is duty. By "duty", he means doing what is right purely for the sake of doing what is right. In practice, this means sticking to our basic principles over more shallow and enticing choices.

Quick example: Suppose you hold the principle that stealing is bad. However, at a certain point you are overcome by the desire to steal something which you cannot afford by honest means. You are also a genius at criminal work, and the theft of the object would be a perfect crime; you would never be discovered or prosecuted for the theft. In this case, we have two normative forces opposing each other: on the one hand, your anti-stealing principle, and on the other, your desire for that object. Kant believes that rational human beings will recognize that the basic principle is superior to emotional impulses, and hence for most people the basic principle ought to win. You will decide to abstain from theft, not because you're afraid of the police or because you're afraid to ruin your reputation; you abstain simply because your principle says so. This is acting out of duty: a recognition of the fact that basic morality ought to be chosen merely because it is chosen.

Part II

The next rational step is to attempt to formulate a moral law. That's what Part II is about. What Kant says can actually be interpreted in different ways, but here's one way of looking at it.

Preliminary Notes

Note that Kant is not launching an anti-skeptical argument. He presumes that everyone knows that universal moral laws exist - for Kant, that's not even a question. He doesn't argue for the fact that there are moral laws; he's arguing from it.

Note also that Kant disregards organized religion as a source of morality. Kant believed that religious believers obey God because they desire reward and fear punishment. But basing action on reward and punishment opposes precisely Kant's conclusion in Part I. Insofar as a system of morality is a matter of reward and punishment, it stops being morality.

The Categorical Imperative

Now, Kant argues that morality makes absolutely no sense unless the laws are binding for everyone (meaning all rational beings - not just humans). He has an egalitarian view of morality: whatever the moral rights and duties are, they apply to everyone. Hence, finding the moral law oughtn't be too difficult: we simply need to answer the question, For action "A" in circumstances "C" for purpose "P", ought everybody do A in C for P?

In other words, to test a certain principle, we simply need to ask, Would it be right for everyone to always do this action in any situation? If you are able to answer "yes", than it is the morally correct thing to do.

A formulation of the moral law (known famously as the "Categorical Imperative"): Act only on that principle that you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

Logically speaking, to test a principle, you negate it. If the negation of the principle ends in a contradiction, the principle is correct.

Examples

Principle	Categorical?	Comments
Tithing 10% of your income is good	No	This principle is not universal because you cannot will it for everyone in all situations; what about people who don't have enough money to tithe?
Malicious lying is bad	Yes	In an ideal society, it would not be tolerable for even one person to lie. It stands to reason that this principle is universifiable.
I will neither hurt nor help the needy	No	If you think this is moral, you will that the needy are neither hurt nor helped. But what if you are one of the needy? In such a situation, you would will for someone to help you - a direct contradiction of the principle. So this principle ends in a contradiction, and hence cannot be universal.

What is Enlightenment?

Freedom of speech, thought and opinion
Reason, understanding
Courage, knowing the right thing to do (comes with obligations)

There was very strict ideological oppression in Prussia at the time; absolutism.

It is when you can dispute anything and everything.
But Kant is not capable of linking thought to action because that would make one a revolutionary; he is not able to link being enlightened with acting enlightened.

Man leaving behind his self-imposed childhood/nonage, in which he lacked responsibility/maturity.
Enlightenment is reaching adulthood, in which man is able to think.
It is an activity in the real world.

There is a distinction between the individual and the collective/community.

Becoming enlightened is easier said than done.
It is a gradual progress.

Reason is the mechanism; we all partake of reason.
Reason can be used in private and in public.
The individual is bound to the community by reason.

According to Aristotle, there is a distinction between potentiality and actuality. We are born with certain potentialities, such as reason. When the potentiality of reason becomes an actuality, we are enlightened.

There is a distinction between experience and knowledge. Kant says enlightenment comes from knowledge. He is an idealist (like Plato, with his theory of forms). The opposite is empiricism, which is the belief that in order to know, we first have to experience.

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Part 1

Examples of universal quantifiers: always, all, every, never.

The human being can never be the means to an end. You can’t ‘use’ a person.

Categorical imperative: act in such a way that you should will it to be a universal law.
The categorical imperative is purely formal. It cannot have any content.

Kant's project is a Copernican revolution in the realm of the mind. [See introduction.]

A priori: from the first, before anything else, before experiment or experience.
A posteriori: after the fact.
Analytic: predicate is contained in the concept of the subject.
Synthetic: predicate adds something new to our conception of the subject.
Kant is interested in synthetic a priori judgments.

Transcendental: that which is concerned with the conditions of possibility of something else. For Kant, it is that which is concerned with the conditions of possibility of how we are supposed to act. This is not empirical.

p15: “I must reflect whether the matter might be handled more prudently by proceeding in a general maxim and making it a habit to promise nothing except with the intention of keeping it. But it is soon clear to me that such a maxim will still be based only on results feared. To be truthful from duty, however, is something entirely different from being truthful from anxiety about detrimental results, since in the first case the concept of the action in itself already contains a law for me while in the second I must first look about elsewhere to see what effects on me might be combined with it.”

According to Kant, acting from duty is the best course. Deviating from duty is evil.
This is a rephrasing of the Christian ‘love thy neighbor’ maxim.
It places a high value on life.

We are dealing with the conditions of possibility for ethics. It is the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Metaphysics is the philosophy limited to determinate objects of the understanding.

Part 2

Kant is the pinnacle of the Enlightenment.
He boiled down the Enlightenment in a nutshell.
The Enlightenment: we are able to gain certain truths, and we can all do this.
Kant did not want to leave any mystery of the human mind not illuminated.
He says “this is the underlying structure of the Enlightenment project”.

Why?
It is better than the middle ages.
Self-reliance, as promoted by Thoreau.
You understand the world without needing professors, priests; without the church.
You can improve your life/existence.
You have the ability to do so.
It changed the way we understand the world, talk to others, etc.
It gives people the means to be equals.
It’s not about knowledge, but processes. Even the Enlightenment itself is a process.

All this being said, Kant is not applicable to reality.
The reader cannot ask, how does this work?
Kant does not tell you how to think, what to think, or who you are.
He tells you how to go about, mentally, doing what you need to do.
He gives you a method to make informed decisions.
The categorical imperative does not work in reality. It justifies totalitarianism.

Kant is an example that theory is important. Without theory, you are a slave to the ‘real’ world.
Influence your own world; take things into your hands.
Thought does not need to produce any immediate results. But without thought, there would be nothing real.